View Single Post
Old 03-10-2013, 03:50 PM   #564 (permalink)
The PRC.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
Speak for yourself. I am. (And as a matter of fact, you could find my name as co-author on several papers related to computer modeling of air pollution transport.)

However, science isn't a forbidden temple, where only an elite caste of priests are allowed entrance to the holy of holies. Anyone is free to learn as much (or as little) of it as they wish.
Yeay, but...

Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
The real problem is that "debate" is fundamentally inconsistent with science, especially here. Debate is the manipulation of words to appeal to the emotions, invoking wishful thinking rather than rational thought. Debate is no more applicable to science than it is to doing jigsaw puzzles: we can debate all we like whether the piece we have in our hands will fit in a particular place, but no amount of debate will make it fit if it doesn't.
No, sorry, but this is bollocks of the first order.

"Science" and "debate" are fundamentally linked, if you think they aren't then I suggest you don't understand either, including your name on papers - At the start of modern science those in the know understood this, for example the exchanges between Isaac Newton and Hooke - where the famous quote

What Des-Cartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, & especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders of Giants
came from.

If "science" is totally certain of it's findings it should place ALL of it's evidence and conclusions into the open, it should have no fear of challenge and no fear of doubt - as Eric Raymond (open source software guy) suggested a couple of years ago.

There is only one way to cut through all of the conflicting claims and agendas about the CRU’s research: open-source it all. Publish the primary data sets, publish the programs used to interpret them and create graphs like the well-known global-temperature “hockey stick”, publish everything. Let the code and the data speak for itself; let the facts trump speculation and interpretation.
Extend this, open source the lot - all the records, the reconstructions, the source data (raw) and the processing software, the adjustments, and the processed data, and the software used after that. Make it so when you issue a paper you make it possible to reproduce so others can learn or note problems.

I (as only a pleb) kind of thought this is what scientists did with "peer review" - but it seems not in the case of climate science, where pal review is just fine.

If you are going to influence politicians to move our modern economy back to the 1600s I demand total proof, otherwise bog off.
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]